Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OCEAN Style


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 17:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

OCEAN Style

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Created as an Elance job by an undisclosed paid editor, and the quality of it shows. So much spam, and no evidence of notability, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as it stands - low-quality sources that show borderline notability at best, and very little substantiation of the article content. WP:TNT applies - David Gerard (talk) 13:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:41, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:41, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * delete few independent sources and the ones we have are passing mentions. Jytdog (talk) 01:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Reluctant delete The article contains multiple sources from what looks like legitimate newspapers in Jamaica, where Ocean is the subject of the article. There is no policy instructing us to delete articles in response to Terms of Use violations, especially when no apparent effort has been made to educate the user on these requirements, or any warning provided. That being said, we do revert edits made by block-evading editors and a quick look at the circumstance seems to suggest it is almost certainly a sock. In a case like this, we should lean towards delete in borderline cases. I don't think the article is actually worse in quality or in strength of sources as many volunteer-written pages. CorporateM (Talk) 00:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Those sources struck me as advertorial or barely-rewritten press releases - David Gerard (talk) 12:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete This appears to be an ad for a non-notable publication which is itself basically a collection of ads. Sigh. John Nagle (talk) 07:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.